bharatrakshakfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:The Panipat Campaign of Marathas/@comment-182.64.57.186-20131022105639/@comment-117.197.240.151-20191213150548
1- In the last 250 years India has been more or less existing as a single political entity and hence the single West/Central Asian power had any reasonable chance of success against India. Invasions in general have declined in the last 250 years. 2- Although Marathas dominated the initial part of the battle of Panipat, Abdali was tactically superior throughout and won a fair rather than lucky victory because: i- He saved his most potent weapon, the 2000 shaturnals for the end ii- He maintained a reserve force iii- He remained at the rear and hence did not expose himself to needless danger. Vishwasrao died not because of a stray shot but because he was in the frontlines where 2000 shaturnals were firing repeatedly. Vishwasrao was not the only person who died due to the firing of shaturnals, 7000 more Marathas had also died in the firing. 3- The Marathas courage and fighting skills received high praise from the opponents. But courage and skill cannot substitute for bad judgment and low discipline. Exposing leaders to the direct dangers of battle was bad strategy as death of the leader would spark chaos. Many Maratha sardars either treacherously supported the Afghans (e.g. Holkar) or did not adher to Bhau's war strategy. On the other hand, Abdali had complete control over the allied army commanders despite their heterogeneity. 4- There are no polls to validate the popularity of Marathas but the fact that they had no allies speaks volumes about their acceptability. Even Rajput kings of Jodhpur and Jaipur supported Abdali. Although Abdali was the biggest murderer of Sikhs, the Phulkian Misl supported him but no Sikh supported Marathas. In Odia, Marhatta is synonym for outdated and old-fashioned while Bargi is synonym for looter. This shows their popularity in Odisha. 5- The Naga sadhus knew about dharma better than Marathas and they fought against them in the battle of Panipat. Also, the Marathas extended no help when the Jats and Nagas fought bravely and sacrificed thousands of lives to oppose sacking of Mathura during the 4th invasion of Abdali. Where was their dharma then? Talking about dharma, ideals and ideology in the 18th century is like talking of feasts during famine. All parties were only interested in power. 6- Marathas, from 1710 onwards, accepted the nominal suzerneity of Mughals even when the emperors were practically their pensioners. The only reason for this behaviour is that they were hard-core pragmatists and did not care about ideals and ideology, including declarationof sovereignity. The fact that Declaration of Soverignity would not have led to any material advantage to them but might have provided a reason for their enemies to band together was enough for them to acknowledge their pensioners as their soveriegns. In other words, they cared about the content i.e. power and money rather than symbols such as soverignity. Considering such hardcore pragmatists as frontline warriors of an ideological battle is a sign of ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. This intellectual dishonesty is not only intellectually but also socially dangerous today as it can spark communal tensions. In simple words, both Marathas and Afghans were pragmatists who wanted only power and wealth. The Afghans had lower ambitions (authority over Punjab and status quo in Upper Gangetic Valley), better unity and more shrewd tacticians and hence could use ideology as a prop to trick people like Shuja. The Marathas with their high ambitions, lack of unity and haughty behaviour could trick no one. The fact that some people believe them to be ideologically driven shows the pathetic standards of our education. However thanks to the Sikhs, who represented the only ideological force in 18th century India, Indians were spared the ravages of Afghans.